Incorporating Residual Strains in the Flexural

Rigidity of RC members with Varying Degrees

of Prestress and Cracking

D. Knight1, P. Visintin1, D.J. Oehlers1,* and M.Z. Jumaat2

1School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia
2Department of Civil Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

(Received: 26 September 2012; Received revised form: 26 June 2013; Accepted: 27 June 2013)

Abstract: The deformation of reinforced concrete columns and beams is controlled by

the variation of the flexural rigidity (EI) both along the member and with applied loads
and time. Currently, the moment-curvature (M/χ) approach is used to quantify EI.
Prior to cracking, the M/χ approach provides a pure mechanics based solution for EI;
that is, the only components of the model that have to be determined empirically are
the material stress-strain relationships. However after cracking, the M/χ approach has
to be semi-empirical, that is EI has to be determined empirically because the M/χ
approach cannot simulate the mechanics of tension-stiffening. An alternative approach
for quantifying EI using a moment-rotation (M/θ) approach is described in this paper.
It is shown that the M/θ approach gives exactly the same results as the M/χ approach
prior to cracking but after cracking has an advantage over the M/χ approach in that it
can quantify the mechanics of tension-stiffening, that is allow for bond slip and its
effect on crack spacing and crack widths. This paper deals with the mechanics of
incorporating creep, shrinkage, prestress, relaxation and thermal gradients (broadly
referred to as residual strains) on the flexural rigidity of RC beams and columns at all
levels of loading prior to concrete softening.

Key words: reinforced concrete, beams, columns, tension-stiffening, flexural rigidity, creep, shrinkage, prestress,
relaxation, thermal gradients, bond-slip, crack spacing, crack widths.

1. INTRODUCTION bounds of the tests from which they were derived. To

The mechanics governing the behaviour of reinforced
concrete flexural members such as beams and columns is
generally depicted in terms of the flexural rigidity (EI). It
is standard practice to quantify EI through a strain based
moment-curvature (M/χ) analysis which applies at a
section of the member, that is it is two-dimensional.
Being strain based and being applicable at a discrete
section, this M/χ approach cannot incorporate slip
between the reinforcement and the adjacent concrete
which occurs when cracks intercept reinforcement.
Hence the M/χ approach cannot simulate the mechanics
of tension-stiffening and, consequently, requires a semi-
empirical approach (Oehlers 2010; Oehlers et al. 2011a,
2012a) which restricts its application to within the
*Corresponding author. Email address: doehlers@civeng.adelaide.edu.au; Fax: +61-8-8303-4359; Tel: +61-8-8303-4314.
Associate Editor: J.G. Dai
overcome this problem, a moment-rotation (M/θ)
approach (Oehlers et al. 2011b; Visintin et al. 2012a) first
postulated by Bachman (1970) is described which
considers the mechanics of a small segment of the
member subjected to a constant moment in order to
quantify the sectional flexural rigidity EI and its variation
with moment (M) and axial load (P). By considering a
segment of the member which is three-dimensional, as
opposed to a section of the member that is two-
dimensional, the M/θ approach can incorporate the bond-
slip between the reinforcement and the adjacent concrete
which also allows the effects of crack spacing and crack
widths on EI to be quantified through mechanics. In this
paper, the M/θ approach is taken a step further to

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013 1701

 Incorporating Residual Strains in the Flexural Rigidity of RC members with Varying Degrees of Prestress and Cracking
incorporate the effects of creep, shrinkage, prestress,
relaxation and thermal gradients (broadly referred to as
residual strains) on the flexural rigidity of RC beams and
columns at all levels of loading prior to compressive
softening of concrete.
The standard M/θ approach is first described and it is
shown that the strain based two-dimensional M/χ
approach and the deformation based three-dimensional
M/θ approach give exactly the same results prior to
concrete cracking. However as the M/θ approach is
required to quantify the behaviour after cracking, it is
also used to illustrate the effect of residual strains on the
pre-cracking behaviour. The effects of cracking are then
incorporated in the M/θ analysis through the partial-
interaction analysis of concentrically loaded RC prisms
which is a standard method of simulating tension-
stiffening both theoretically and experimentally (Goto
1971; Mirza and Houde 1979; Somayaji and Shah 1981;
Jiang et al. 1984; Rizkalla and Hwang 1984; Hegemier
et al. 1985; Gupta and Maestrini 1990; Chan et al. 1992;
Choi and Cheung 1996; Marti et al. 1998; Fields and
Bischoff 2004; Lee and Kim 2008; Wu and Gilbert
2008; Yankelevsky et al. 2008; Stramandinoli and La
Rovere 2008; Haskett et al. 2009a, b, c; Oehlers et al.
2011b, 2012b; Visintin et al. 2012b; Muhamad et al.
2012; Mohamed Ali et al. 2012). The effects of residual
strains on tension-stiffening is then quantified. The
results of the M/θ analysis can then be converted to an
equivalent M/χ and consequently equivalent EI
variations for use in analyses. These EI values are
referred to as equivalent values as their use will give
exactly the same rotations as in the M/θ analysis and,
hence, they are not the same as effective EI values that
are determined empirically.
2. M/θ AND M/χ WITHOUT TENSION
STIFFENING
Let us first consider the behaviour of a segment in which
there are no residual strains and in which tension-
stiffening is either ignored or does not occur. The M/θ
approach derives the variation of the member sectional
properties, such as EI or χ, by considering the
deformation of a short length of the member or segment
as illustrated in Figure 1. The segment in Figure 1(b) is
of length 2Ldef between the ends shown as Lines U-U
with the cross-section shown in Figure 1(a). The ends of
the concrete component of the segment are shown as
Lines C-C and the ends of the reinforcement as Lines R-
R. In this example because there are no residual strains,
these lines occur at the same position as Lines U-U so
that they will be referred to as Lines RC-RC. The
segment ends at Lines RC-RC are subjected to a
1702
constant moment M and axial load P which cause both
axial deformations such as δrt at the compression
reinforcement and δrb at the tension reinforcement, and
rotations θ. These deformations are accommodated by
the Euler-Bernoulli deformations Lines E-E, that is
plane sections remain plane, at both segment ends as
shown.
By symmetry Line D-D at mid-length of the segment
in Figure 1 remains unchanged so this will be referred to
as the datum as all deformations such as that imposed by
Lines E-E divided by the length of this region Ldef give
the strains. Lines R-R and C-C will be referred to as
base lines as all deformations imposed by Lines E-E
relative to these base lines cause strains that induce
stresses as not all strains, such as shrinkage strains,
induce stresses.
As the deformations on either side of D-D in Figure 1
are mirror images, it is only necessary to illustrate the
analysis of one half of length Ldef as shown in
Figure 2(b). The deformations in Figure 2(b) that is the
distances between RC-RC and E-E, such as δrt and δrb,
divided by the length Ldef from the datum D-D gives the
linear strain profile in Figure 2(c), which is the corollary
of the Euler-Bernoulli theorem, which cause stress. The
curvature χ is simply θ/Ldef. Prior to cracking, the strain
in Figure 2(c) with the material stress-strain
relationships gives the stress profile in Figure 2(d) and
the integration of this stress profile gives the distribution
of forces in Figure 2(e).
An iterative approach can be used to find a solution to
the analysis in Figure 2. For example, the rotation θ
could be fixed in Figure 2(b) and the neutral axis depth
varied until the resultant axial force in Figure 2(e) was
equal to the applied axial force P after which the moment
M can be taken for that specific rotation θ; the analysis
can be simplified by slicing the concrete into very thin
elements of depth de as in Figure 2(a) and by assuming
that the stresses within each concrete element and
reinforcing bar are uniform. The analysis could be
repeated for increasing rotations to quantify
the relationship between M and θ as in Figure 3(a) where
O-A are the results prior to cracking and O-B are the
results after cracking. The problem here is that there is
no transition from O-A to O-B that is a strain based
approach cannot quantify tension stiffening (Oehlers
2010; Oehlers et al. 2011a, 2012a). It will be shown later
that the incorporation of partial-interaction theory into
the moment-rotation analysis will be used to find a
mechanics solution and, furthermore, that this mechanics
approach can be used to include residual strains.
The rotation axis, the abscissa in Figure 3(a), can be
divided by Ldef to get the M/χ relationship in Figure
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013
D. Knight, P. Visintin, D.J. Oehlers and M.Z. Jumaat

Ldef Ldef

U U
R C E D X E R C

δ rt

Euler-Bernoulli
θ θ
deformation Datum
M M
P P

Base lines
Ldef δ rb

X-X E R C D X R C E
U
(a) Section (b) Segment

Figure 1. Deformation of segment without residual strains

δ
Exp Cont ε σ F
U Ten Comp Ten Comp Ten Comp
R C E D
δ rt δ rt/Ldef Frt
Fcc
de θ χ
M
Elements Neutral
P Fct
axis

δ rb/Ldef
δ rb Frb

E R C D
U Ldef

(a) Section (b) Deformation (c) Strain (d) Stress (e) Force

Figure 2. Segmental analysis without residual strains

(a) (b) (c)

M M M
B

θso
EIso

Uncracked
A
Mcr
Cracked

EIcr
EIucr
EIeq
o θ χ (θ/Ldef) EIso EIcr EIucr

Figure 3. Sectional properties from segmental analysis

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013 1703

 Incorporating Residual Strains in the Flexural Rigidity of RC members with Varying Degrees of Prestress and Cracking
3(b), where the secant stiffnesses are the flexural
rigidities (EI) and which are plotted in Figure 3(c). The
flexural rigidities in Figure 3(c) are referred to as
equivalent flexural rigidities (EIeq) as in terms of
mechanics they are exact, that is they give the same
rotations as in Figure 3(a); this is in contrast to
empirically derived flexural rigidities which are
sometimes referred to as effective.
Prior to cracking, the strain profile in Figure 2(c) is
directly related to the stress profile in Figure 2(d) by the
material stress-strain relationship, that is it is strain
based as in the standard M/χ analysis. Hence steps (c),
(d) and (e) in Figure 2 are exactly the same as in a strain
based M/χ analysis. Hence the M/θ and M/χ approaches
are identical prior to cracking.
As mentioned previously, after cracking the M/χ
approach cannot accommodate tension-stiffening but
simply assumes that the tension reinforcement is fully
unbonded that is the tension reinforcement displacement
δrb in Figure 2(b) is a product of the extension of the
reinforcing bars alone. Hence the M/χ analysis after
cracking assumes: no-interaction for the tension
reinforcement and full-interaction for the compression
reinforcement; cannot accommodate tension-stiffening;
and, hence, cannot predict crack widths and crack
spacings.
3. M/θ WITH RESIDUAL STRAINS AND
PRIOR TO CRACKING
Let us now apply residual strains to the M/θ analysis in
Figure 2 but only consider the analysis prior to cracking
as tension-stiffening will be dealt with later.
3.1. Shrinkage, Creep and Thermal Gradients
The imposition of shrinkage strains ε sh to the
concrete are shown in Figure 4(b) where it can be
seen that the concrete base line C-C moves from the
segment end when unstressed, that is from U-U, by
εsh Ldef. The concrete base line C-C is where the
concrete segment face would be if the concrete of
length Ldef were free to shrink that is if it was
unrestrained by the reinforcement. The concrete base
line C-C and the reinforcement base line R-R are the
positions where the respective materials are
unstressed. For example at the level of the top
reinforcement, deformation E-E imposes a
contraction from U-U of δrt. This overall contraction
δrt causes the same contraction in the reinforcement
δrt as U-U is in line with R-R and, consequently, the
strains in the reinforcement in Figure 4(c). However
this overall contraction δrt in Figure 4(b) only causes
compressive stresses in the concrete due to the
deformation δcc. Hence the strains in the concrete are
1704
offset from those in the reinforcement as in Figure
4(c). Another way of visualising this approach is that
when the deformation E-E at the top is εsh Ldef then
there is no stress in the concrete at the top. Hence
this base line approach is a convenient tool for
automatically allowing for shrinkage and other
residual strains and is used later in the more complex
problem of allowing for residual strains in tension
stiffening.
The deformations in Figure 4(b) cause the strains in
Figure 4(c) as shown where εr is the strain profile for the
reinforcement and εc that for the concrete. From
the material stress-strain properties, these strains can be
converted to stresses as in Figure 4(d) and forces as in
Figure 4(e). Hence this procedure can be used to
quantify the M/θ and consequently M/χ and M/EIeq as
illustrated in Figure 3 for use in member analyses.
The effect of concrete creep can be included in the
analysis by adjusting the concrete modulus for creep
when deriving the stress profile as in Figure 4(d)
from the strain profile in Figure 4(c). It may also be
worth mentioning that a similar procedure can be
used to incorporate thermal gradients. For example,
if the segment was subjected to rising temperatures
which varied along its depth, then the base line R-R
in Figure 4(b) would move to R’-R’ depending on
the coefficient of thermal expansion of the
reinforcement and the thermal gradient. Furthermore
the base line C-C which has already been adjusted
for shrinkage would have a further displacement
imposed which would move it to C’-C’ depending
once again on the coefficient of thermal expansion
for the concrete and the thermal gradient. These
would then be the base lines that allow for both
shrinkage and thermal gradients for the steps in (c),
(d) and (e). Shrinkage and thermal variations are in
reality three-dimensional problems as they vary
throughout both the width and depth of the member.
It is common practice in design to assume a one
dimensional approach that is the shrinkage and
thermal variations are constant as shown in Figure
4(c). However this approach can easily cope with
variation in shrinkage along the depth that is εsh Ldef
in Figure 4(c) is not constant as shown in Figures
4(b) and (c) but varies. A three dimensional variation
would be more difficult to cope with but could in
theory be done by analysing slices of the member
through its width.
3.2. Prestress
To illustrate the inclusion of prestress, let us consider
the simplest case of a post-tensioned member with a
horizontal duct in which the prestressing rod is first
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013
D. Knight, P. Visintin, D.J. Oehlers and M.Z. Jumaat

δ ε
Exp Cont Ten Comp
δrt δr = δrt /Ldef σ F
U Ten Comp Ten Comp
C δcc εcc = δcc/Ldef
R' C' E D
R
Frt
εc Fcc

M εr
P
θ χ

Frb
Fct
R' E C' C D εsh
R εshLdef
U
Ldef

(a) Section (b) Deformation (c) Strain (d) Stress (e) Force

Figure 4. Segmental analysis with shrinkage

prestressed to a force Ppr after which the duct is
grouted to provide full-interaction between the
prestressing rod and the adjacent concrete before
moment is applied.
The first step of the analysis, the application of the
prestress force Ppr through the duct, is shown in Figure 5;
in this case the prestress acts as an external force that
has to be resisted by the reinforced concrete cross-
section. It is a question of finding the deformation Epr-
Epr at rotation θpr in Figure 5(b) when the resultant
force in the reinforced concrete section FRC, that is the
resultant of Frt, Fcc and Frb in Figure 5(e), is equal to
and in line with the prestressing force Ppr as shown in
Figure 5(e). For example a guess could be made for θpr
in Figure 5(b) and the displacement Epr– Epr moved up
or down until the resultant force, derived from the
stresses on the RC section FRC was equal to Ppr;
however, if FRC is not in line with the prestressing rod
then θpr would have to be adjusted until it is. The effect
of including shrinkage is shown in Figure 6 where the
concrete base line moves to the right by εsh Ldef as
shown.
The analyses in Figures 5 and 6 gives the rotation
due to prestress θpr in Figure 5(b) as well as the
contraction of the segment at the level of
the prestressing rod due to the prestress δrc-rd. These
are the residual displacements carried forward into the
second step of the analysis after the duct has been
grouted.
After prestress, the prestressing rod is grouted so it
now acts as part of the reinforced concrete member as
opposed to an external force as in the first part of the
analysis. Prior to the application of an applied moment,
the deformed shape in Figures 5 and 6 is given by

δ
Exp Cont ε σ F
U Epr D Ten Comp Ten Comp Ten Comp
R C
Frt

θpr εc & εr

Prestressing rod
εpr σpr Fcc
Ppr FRC
Duct
Frb
R C
U Epr D
Ldef
(a) Section (b) Deformation (c) Strain (d) Stress (e) Force

Figure 5. Application of prestress

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013 1705

 Incorporating Residual Strains in the Flexural Rigidity of RC members with Varying Degrees of Prestress and Cracking

δ
Exp Cont ε σ F
U Epr D Ten Comp Ten Comp Ten Comp
R C

εr
εc
εpr σpr
δrc − rd
Ppr FRC
θpr
R C
U Epr D
EshLdef
Ldef

(a) Section (b) Deformation (c) Strain (d) Stress (e) Force

Figure 6. Application of prestress with shrinkage

Epr–Epr and δrc–rd which occur at a rotation θpr as shown
in Figure 7(b) and which have already been determined
in the first part of the analysis. It is now a question of
changing the rotation by θm such that the deformation
moves from Epr –Epr to Em–Em as shown, and then
moving Em–Em up or down at this rotation until the
resulting axial force in Figure 7(e) sums to zero after
which the moment M is taken and which applies at the
total rotation θ of θm–θr. The strain in the reinforcement
and concrete are given by the strain profile εr and εc in
Figure 7(c). However the strain in the prestressing rod
is given by the prestressing strain εpr prior to grouting
and the extension of the rod due to the change from
Epr–Epr to Em–Em that is δrd /Ldef after grouting. From
these strains can be derived the stresses and if there is
relaxation in the tendon this can be accommodated by
changing the modulus of the rod and if there is creep
this can also be accommodated by changing the
modulus of the concrete.
4. M/θ WITH TENSION STIFFENING AND
WITHOUT RESIDUAL STRAINS
The M/θ analyses as illustrated in Figures 4 to 7, can be
used to predict the moment at the onset of cracking Mcr
when the tensile strain in the concrete such as in Figure
7(c) exceeds the concrete tensile capacity εct. This first
crack will be referred to as the initial crack and the
moment at which it occurs Mcr can be obtained from
both a M/θ or M/χ analysis. Furthermore, these strain
based analyses can still be used until the crack tip
intercepts a reinforcement.
When a crack intercepts reinforcement, then slip
between the reinforcement and the adjacent concrete
must occur to allow separation of the crack faces, that
is to allow the crack to widen. This mechanism is
referred to as tension-stiffening and it is common
practice to simulate tension-stiffening both
experimentally (Mirza and Houde 1979; Somayaji and
Shah 1981; Jiang et al. 1984; Rizkalla and Hwang

δ
Exp Cont ε σ F
U Epr Em D Ten Comp Ten Comp Ten Comp
θm Frt
θpr
Fcc
M εr & εc

Grouted rod δrd

εpr + δrd/Ldef σpr
Frd
δrc − rd
Frb
Fct
Em Epr D
U
Ldef

(a) Section (b) Deformation (c) Strain (d) Stress (e) Force

Figure 7. Application of moment to prestressed member

1706 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013

D. Knight, P. Visintin, D.J. Oehlers and M.Z. Jumaat

1984; Lee and Kim 2008; Wu and Gilbert 2008) and

theoretically (Gupta and Maestrini 1990; Wu et al. τmax
1991; Choi and Cheung 1996; Marti et al. 1998;
Stramandinoli and La Rovere 2008; Yankelevsky et al.
2008) by using a concentrically loaded reinforced τ
concrete prism.
G

4.1. Tension-Stiffening Analysis of

Concentrically Loaded Prism
The mechanism governing tension-stiffening is
illustrated in Figure 8. The concentrically loaded prism
in Figure 8(a) has a cross-sectional area of concrete Ac,
cross-sectional area of reinforcement Ar, and the
perimeter length between the reinforcement and
adjacent concrete is of length Lper. The concentrically
loaded prism is of length Lpri as in Figure 8(b) and the
crack face is shown on the left hand side.
The bond stress τ between the reinforcement and the
concrete in Figure 8(b) varies over the contact surface
area Lper Lpri as it depends on the slip at the
reinforcement/concrete interface ∆. The relationships
between bond-stress and interface-slip (τ -∆) are
usually determined experimentally and have a wide
variety of shapes (Eleghausen et al. 1982; CEB-FIP
1992; Wu et al. 2002; Teng et al. 2004; Yuan et al.
2004; Dai et al. 2005; Dai et al. 2006; Seracino et al.
2007a; Seracino et al. 2007a, b; CEB-FIP 2010).
However, these shapes are often characterised as
shown in Figure 9 where τmax is the peak shear stress
that occurs at a slip ∆pk, ∆max is the slip beyond which
the shear stress tends to zero and G is the fracture
energy which is a major parameter in quantifying the
debonding resistance (Yuan et al. 2004; Teng et al.
2006; Haskett et al. 2009; Mohamed Ali et al. 2012;
Muhamad et al. 2012).
To illustrate the tension-stiffening mechanism, the
prism in Figure 8(b) is sliced into n very short elements
of length Le such that the slip within an element ∆n can
be assumed to be constant (Oehlers et al. 2011b). Hence
O ∆pk ∆ ∆max
Figure 9. Bond-slip material property
for a slip ∆n within an element, the bond stress ∆n can be
derived from the material bond-slip property (τ–∆) so
that the bond force Bn is equal to τn Lper Le. Furthermore,
an iterative shooting method used in the analysis of
composite steel and concrete members (Oehlers et al.
1995; Oehlers et al. 1999) will be used to find a solution
as this approach allows for partial-interaction that is slip
across a bonded interface.
Let us start with Element 1 in Figure 8(b). A slip ∆cf
at the crack face (∆1) is imposed as shown, and it is a
question of determining the force in the reinforcing
bar Fr when this slip occurs. The left hand side of
Element 1 is also the crack face so that ∆1 is also the
slip at the crack face ∆cf and Fr the force in the
reinforcing bar at a crack. Furthermore at the crack
face, the force in the concrete Fc is zero as shown. An
iterative solution can be used by guessing or
estimating the force Fr that induces the required slip
∆1 and then using known boundary conditions along
the prism to determine whether the estimated value for
Fr is correct.
From the bond-slip (τ–∆) properties, the bond shear
stress τ1 at ∆1 can be derived. Hence the bond force B1
in Element 1 in Figure 8(b) is ∆1Le Lper. Hence on the
right hand side of Element 1, the force in the

Lpri
(1) (2) (3)
Le Le Le
Crack face

Ac Fc = 0 B1 B1 + B2 B3
εc1 Fr − B1 εc2 Fr − B1 − B2 εc3
Lper εr1 εr2 εr3
Fr Fr − B1 − B2 − B3
B1 B2 B3
Ar ∆1
(∆cf) ∆'1 = εr1 − εc1 ∆'2 = εr2 − εc2 ∆'3 = εr3 − εc3
∆2 = ∆1 − ∆'1Le ∆3 = ∆2 − ∆'2Le
(a) Prism cross-section (b) Prism length

Figure 8. Tension-stiffening analysis without residual strains

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013 1707

 Incorporating Residual Strains in the Flexural Rigidity of RC members with Varying Degrees of Prestress and Cracking
reinforcement has reduced to Fr–B1 and the force in the
concrete increased to B1. From the forces on either side
of the element can be derived the mean forces and from
the material properties the mean strains in the
reinforcement εr1 and those in the concrete εc1. The
strain difference εr–εc is referred to as the slip-strain
d∆/dx (∆′) because ∆ ′Le is the change in slip within
the element (δ∆). Hence within Element 1, ∆1′ Le equals
(εr1–εc1)Le so that the slip in Element 2 that is ∆2 is now
equal to ∆1 less (εr1–εc1)Le.
The procedure outlined above can be repeated along
the length of the prism in Figure 8(b) so that the
variation along the prism of the slip ∆, slip-strain ∆′,
reinforcement strain εr and concrete strain εc can be
determined. For the specific value of ∆cf, Fr can be
adjusted until the known boundary condition is
achieved: for long prisms, this may be the full-
interaction boundary condition where somewhere along
the prism both ∆ and ∆′ tend to zero at the same
position; for short prisms, this may be when εr is zero
at the end of the reinforcement; for reinforcement that
is anchored, this may be that ∆ is zero at the position of
the anchorage; and for symmetrically loaded prisms
this may be when ∆ is zero mid-way along the prism.
These boundary conditions are considered in more
detail later.
The analysis in Figure 8 relies on a uniform stress
distribution within both the reinforcement and the
concrete; for example in Element 1, it relies on the
concrete force B1 being uniformly distributed over Ac. It
also relies on the resulting force at any cross-section,
such as the resultant of concrete force B1 and
reinforcement force Fr–B1 in Element 1, being in line
with Fr; otherwise bending would occur which cannot
(a)
b
(b)
Prestress
rod
b/2
≡ Ar
Crd Crd
Cr
Reinforcement
Figure 10. Tension-stiffening prisms
1708
be accommodated by this type of tension-stiffening
analysis. Hence it is important that the prism is
concentrically loaded and this can be achieved through
symmetry. If for example, the RC section in
Figure 10(a) only had the prestressing rod, then the
concentrically loaded prism in Figure 10(b) could be
used in the tension-stiffening analysis. Similarly, if
there were only the reinforcement and this was
symmetrically placed and each reinforcement had the
same bond-slip characteristics, then the prism in
Figure 10(c) could be used; in this case Ar would be the
total area of reinforcements; Lper the total length of all
the perimeters; and Ac the total area of concrete. When
the reinforcement and the prestressing rod are combined
as in Figure 10(a), only an approximation can be made
for a symmetrically loaded prism because there is no
symmetry. In this case, treating them separately as in
Figures 10(b) and 10(c) but combining the outcomes is
a good approximation.
4.2. Single Crack Partial-Interaction Segmental
Analysis
When the initial crack has formed at Mcr, the segment
has a single crack as in Figure 11. The forces in the
tension reinforcement can now be derived from the
numerical tension-stiffening analysis in Figure 8
(Haskett et al. 2009a, b, c; Oehlers et al. 2011b) or from
closed form solutions (Yuan et al. 2004; Mohamed Ali
et al. 2012; Muhamad et al. 2012; Wu et al. 1991) or
from finite element modelling of tension-stiffening
(Chen et al. 2012).
The right hand tension stiffening prism in
Figure 11(b) is shown in Figure 12(b). In region Lpi,
there is partial-interaction so that the analysis in
b
Ac
(c)
Ldef
2Crd
b
+
2Cr
Cr
b/2 b/2
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013
D. Knight, P. Visintin, D.J. Oehlers and M.Z. Jumaat

Ldef ≥ Lpi Ldef ≥ Lpi

U E D E U

Neutral Crack tip

axis Tension
Initial crack stiffening
θ θcr
prism
D
Frb − pi

E
Prism E U ∆cf ∆cf U D
Lpi Lfi
LT D LT

(a) Section (b) Deformation

Figure 11. Single crack tension stiffening

(a)
τ ∆ = ∆max
τmax
∆ = ∆pk

Lcri LT (Lpri)
E D
Lcri Lfi (∆ = ∆' = 0)

Lpi

(b)
Frb − pi

LT
E D
Lpi Lfi

τ
(c)
Lcri Lcri

Figure 12. Tension stiffening behaviour with a single crack

Figure 8 applies. This is followed by the full-interaction
region Lfi in Figure 12(b) where both the slip (∆) and
slip-strain (∆′) tend to zero and in which standard full-
interaction procedures such as transformed sections
can be applied. Hence the boundary condition required
to find a solution for the shooting method of analysis
in Figure 8 is that both ∆ and ∆′ tend to zero at some
element n. Hence the results of the partial-interaction
analysis in Figure 8 with these boundary conditions
can be used in Figure 12(b) to quantify Lpi and the
relationship between LT and Frb–pi for use in the
segmental analysis in Figure 11.
As Frb–pi is increased in Figure 12(b), the bond
stresses build up gradually over the region Lpi until they
are fully developed as in Figure 12(a); that is the integral
of the bond stresses over Lpi cannot be increased. The
force in the reinforcement at which the bond stresses are
fully developed is referred to as the intermediate crack
(IC) debonding resistance FIC. The length of this partial-
interaction region at which FIC occurs is referred to as
the critical length Lcri as it is the minimum length
required to achieve the maximum debonding force FIC.
Any further increase in ∆cf only causes the debonded
region to move to the right as in Figure 12(c) at a

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013 1709

 Incorporating Residual Strains in the Flexural Rigidity of RC members with Varying Degrees of Prestress and Cracking
constant force FIC. Hence the analysis of a single crack
can simulate debonding along the length of a member
should it occur (Oehlers et al. 2012b).
The left hand side of the segment in Figure 11 is
shown in Figure 13(b) with the tension-stiffening region
rotated 180o for convenience. The length of the segment
Ldef needs to be greater than Lcri to allow the analysis to
simulate debonding along the reinforcement as in
Figure 12(c). The M/θ analysis is the same as in Figures
4 to 7 except for the force in the tension reinforcing bar
Frb–pi which now depends on partial-interaction tension-
stiffening theory to give the relationship between the
force in the reinforcement at the crack face Frb–pi, the
slip at the crack face ∆rb and the total length of the prism
including its extension from the datum LT. What is
required in the analysis is the relationship between Frb–pi
and LT. However at high loads, LT is approximately Ldef +
∆cf, that is the extension of the concrete prism δrb–∆cf in
Figure 10(b) can be very small relative to ∆cf.
It may be worth noting in Figure 11 that because the
tensile stresses in the concrete below the neutral axis
are very small, the applied rotation θ at E–E is very
close to the crack rotation θcr so that quantifying the
rotation at each crack can be used to quantify the
deflection of a member (Bachman 1970; Muhamad
et al. 2012).
4.3. Multiple Crack Segmental Analysis
The analysis in Figure 12(b) can be used to determine
the reinforcement force Frb–pi and crack face slip ∆cf at
which the concrete cracks at its strain capacity εct at Lcri.
These values can be used in the analysis in Figure 13 to
derive the moment to cause primary cracks Mpr that is
subsequent cracking after the initial crack at Mcr. The
δ
Exp Cont
U Ldef > Lcri
E
θ χ
b
2cr
E U
∆cf
∆rb LT
(a) Section (b) Deformation
Figure 13. Segmental analysis with single crack
1710
moment at which primary cracks occur is, therefore, the
lesser of Mcr from a M/χ analysis and Mpr from a M/θ
analysis as both of these analyses apply at a full-
interaction region.
These primary cracks also occur at the minimum
spacing Lcri in Figure 12(b) as the stresses in the
concrete gradually build up along the partial-interaction
zone Lpi to reach their maximum at the full-interaction
region at Lcri from the initial crack face. Once this
primary crack has formed and subsequent primary
cracks have formed the tension-stiffening prism is now
as shown in Figure 14(c).
Because the prism in Figure 14(c) is symmetrically
loaded, the slip distribution is also symmetrical but of
reversed sign as in Figure 14(b), so that the boundary
condition is now ∆ = 0 at Ldef = Lcri /2. This new
boundary condition can now be used in the tension-
stiffening analysis Figure 8 to derive the relationship
between Frb–pi and LT for the segmental analysis in
Figure 15 in which the cracks are now on either side of
the segment and Ldef is equal to Lcri /2.
If ∆maxin Figure 9 occurs at ∆max–2 in Figure 14(b),
then none of the slip in Figure 14(b) has reached
∆max–2 so that there is bond along the whole length of
Lcri as shown in Figure 14(a) that is it is fully bonded.
However if ∆max occurs at ∆max–1in Figure 14(b), then
bond only occurs in the shaded region in Figure 14(a)
that is the prism is partly bonded. Hence the
debonding mechanism in this multiple crack scenario
is totally different from that of the single crack
scenario in Figure 12 (Oehlers et al. 2012b). In the
multiple crack scenario in Figure 14 debonding does
not limit the reinforcement force Frb–pi on either side
of the prism because by symmetry these forces can
ε σ F
D Ten Comp Ten Comp Ten Comp
Frt
εr & εc Fcc
Fct
hcr
Frb − pi
D
(c) Strain (d) Stress (e) Force
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013
D. Knight, P. Visintin, D.J. Oehlers and M.Z. Jumaat

(a)
Partly bonded
Fully bonded @∆max-1
@∆max-2
τ

(b) ∆max-2
∆max-1
∆

Primary crack Ldef = Lcri/2 ∆=0 Ldef = Lcri/2 Primary crack

face face
(c)
Frb − pi Frb − pi

∆cf ∆cf
LT LT

Figure 14. Tension-stiffening with multiple cracks

Lcri/4 for secondary cracks

Lcri/2 for primary cracks

Ldef Ldef

Cracks face Cracks face

(a) Section LT
(b) Deformation

Figure 15. Segmental analysis with multiple cracks

keep increasing even if the bonded region tended to
zero length. In contrast in the single crack scenario in
Figure 12, F rb–pi is limited to F IC as explained
previously.
It may also be worth mentioning that the analysis in
Figure 14 can also be used to predict the onset of
secondary cracks at Lcri /2 should the bond be
sufficiently strong to allow them to occur (Muhamad
et al. 2012). When there are secondary cracks, the
tension-stiffening analysis is the same as that in Figure
14 except that Ldef now equals Lcri /4. Similarly, the
segmental analysis is that in Figure 15 except that Ldef is
also Lcri/4 (Visintin et al. 2012a; Muhamad et al. 2012).
The M/θ analyses for both the single crack and
multiple crack scenarios take the same form as in Figure 13
to provide the sectional properties as in Figure 3 which
can then be used in the analysis of members or frames
(Oehlers et al. 2012b).
5. TENSION STIFFENING WITH RESIDUAL
STRAINS
The effect of residual strains on the behaviour of the
uncracked region has already been covered in Section 3.
Let us now consider the effects of residual strains on the
tension-stiffening analysis in Figure 8 starting with
shrinkage.
5.1. Tension Stiffening with Shrinkage
To determine the effect of shrinkage on the total
deformation LT in Figure 12(b) or LT in Figure 14(c), it

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013 1711

 Incorporating Residual Strains in the Flexural Rigidity of RC members with Varying Degrees of Prestress and Cracking

is first necessary to determine the effect of shrinkage in
the full-interaction region such Lfi in Figure 12 as this
effects the behaviour in the partial-interaction region
Lpi.
The analysis in Figure 16(b) is a full-interaction
analysis of an element of length Le with the cross-
section in Figure 16(a). Line D-D in Figure 16(b) is
the datum line. Line R-R is the base line for
the reinforcement, that is the position of the end of the
reinforcement relative to D-D when the stress in the
reinforcement is zero. If there were no shrinkage, this
would also be the base line for the concrete. However
the concrete is subjected to a shrinkage strain εsh
which would cause the concrete element to contract by
εshLe to C-C if it were free to contract. Hence the base
line for the concrete, that is the position of the
concrete end when the stresses in the concrete are
zero, is at C-C. It is, therefore, a question of finding
the position of the segment end L-L where εr–shLe is
the contraction of the reinforcement from its base line

Ac

Ar

Lper

(a) Cross-section

Le
R

L C D

(b) FI

L C D
εr − shLe εc − shLe

εshLe

Ec C D

Fcn
Er R

Frn
(c) PI
Er
R

Ec C D
εrnLe
εcnLe
∆δn

Figure 16. Slip-strain with shrinkage

1712 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013

D. Knight, P. Visintin, D.J. Oehlers and M.Z. Jumaat
R-R that causes stress in the reinforcement and εc–shLe
is the extension of the concrete from its base line C-C
that causes stress in the concrete. As from
equilibrium, the force in the reinforcement Fr is equal
to the force in the concrete F c and as from
compatibility the sum of reinforcement strain εr–sh and
that of the concrete εc–sh is equal to εsh the residual
strains in the concrete εc–sh and reinforcement εr–sh
can be determined.
The residual strains εc–sh and εr–sh in Figure 16(b)
apply to the element prior to interface slip. In the
tension-stiffening analysis in the partial-interaction
region in Figure 8, the prism is divided into n elements
where in the analysis procedure the mean force in the
concrete Fcn is known and its respective mean strain
εcn as well as the mean force in the reinforcement Frn
and its respective mean strain εrn. Hence the concrete
base line C-C in Figure 16(c) moves εcnLe to Ec–Ec
and the reinforcement base line R-R moves εrnLe to
Er–Er. The distance from Er–Er to Ec–Ec is the change
in slip δ∆n that occurs within the nth element. From the
deformations in Figure 16
δ∆ n = ( ε r − sh + ε c − sh ) Le + ( ε rn − ε cn ) Le (1)
and as εr-sh plus εc-sh equals εsh then
δ∆ n = ε sh Le + ( ε rn − ε cn ) Le (2)
That is the change in slip within an element is equal to
(
δ∆ n = ∆T′ Le = ∆ ′sh + ∆ ′ap Le ) (3)
where ∆′Τ is the total slip-strain, ∆′sh is the slip-strain due
to shrinkage and ∆′ap is the slip-strain due to the applied
stresses. It can be seen that the slip-strains can be
derived from the deformations which can then be used
in the tension-stiffening analysis in Figure 8.
5.2. Slip-Strains Due to Residual Strains
The derivation of the slip-strains for shrinkage,
prestress, temperature and applied stress are shown in
Figures 17(a) to (d). Shrinkage has already been dealt
with in Figure 16 and the results are shown in Figure
17(a) where exp and cont mean that the residual strain
cause either expansion or contraction of the member. In
this case the residual strain in the concrete εc–sh
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013
causes the concrete to expand whilst that in the
reinforcement εr–sh causes it to contract.
Figure 17(b) represents the deformations due to
prestress. In this case prestressing rods are prestressed to
a specific strain εr–pr which is a stress σr–pr and a force
Ppr. As the concrete prism resists the same force, the
stress and consequently strain εc–pr can be determined.
Hence the deformations are shown in Figure 17(b)
where the residual strain in the concrete due to prestress
εc–pr causes contraction and that in the prestressing rod
εr–pr causes expansion.
The effect of temperature variations in Figure 17(c)
is similar to that of shrinkage in Figure 17(a). For
example, expansion of the concrete due to a
temperature rise causes the base line C-C to move to
the left by αcδTcLe where αc is the coefficient of
thermal expansion of the concrete and δTc is the rise in
temperature of the concrete. Similarly a rise in
temperature of the reinforcement causes the base line
to move to the left by αrδTrLe where αr is the
coefficient of thermal expansion of the reinforcement
and δTr is the rise in temperature of the reinforcement.
The difference between α rδTrLe and α cδTcLe is
equivalent to εsh Le for shrinkage so that using the
shrinkage procedure gives the residual strains due to
temperature variation in Figure 17(c).
Prior to cracking, the applied force such as Frb–pi in
Figure 12(b) cause stresses in the full-interaction
region. These stresses cause equal deformations
within the concrete and reinforcement as in Figure
17(d) which cause equal residual strains as shown.
These can be determined through standard full-
interaction procedures such as transformed sections.
These strains cause a deformation but they do not
induce a slip-strain and so do not contribute to the
change in slip in the partial interaction region. The
effect of creep and shrinkage is similar. The effect of
creep can be accommodated by changing the modulus
of the concrete. For example, if the member were in
tension this would cause the base lines in Figure
17(d) to move to the left and affect the deformation
but not the slip-strain. Relaxation of the prestressing
rod can be accommodated by changing its modulus as
well which has the same overall effect.
The effect of the residual strains in Figures 17(a) to
(d) on the partial-interaction element such as those
shown in Figure 8 is shown in Figure 17(e); the same
logic is used as in Figure 16. In this case in
Figure 17(e)
(
δ∆ n = ( ε r − sh + ε c − sh ) − ε r − pr + ε c − pr )
(4)
+ ( ε r − tem + ε c − tem ) + ( ε rn − ε cn )  Le
1713
 Incorporating Residual Strains in the Flexural Rigidity of RC members with Varying Degrees of Prestress and Cracking

Le D

L C (εc − sh (exp))
R
(εr − sh (cont))
R
L C
εr − shLe εc − shLe D
εshLe
(a) FI shrinkage

D
C L (εc − pr (cont))
R
(εr − pr (exp))
R
C L
εc − prLe εr − prLe D
(b) FI Prestress

D
L C (εc − tem (exp))
R
(εr − tem (cont))
R
L C
εr − temLe εc − temLe D
(αrδTr − αcδTc) Le
(c) FI Temperature

D
L C (εc − ap (exp))
R
(εr − ap (exp))
R
L C
εc − apLe = εr − apLe D
(d) FI Applied

D
Lc L C
Lr R

Lr R
Lc L C D
(εc − sh − εc − pr + εc − temp + εc − ap) Le

(εr − sh − εr − pr + εr − temp − εr − ap) Le

εrnLe
εcnLe
δ∆n
(d) PI for all

Figure 17. Slip-strains

from which it can be seen that the slip-strains from the These can then be used in the partial-interaction
residual strains can be added as follows segmental analysis as in Figure 15 to derive the
∆ T′ = ∆ sh
′ − ∆ ′pr + ∆ tem
′ + ∆ ap
′ (5) moment-rotation and consequently the variation in

1714 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013

D. Knight, P. Visintin, D.J. Oehlers and M.Z. Jumaat

curvature and flexural rigidity with moment and the 6. SECTIONAL PROPERTIES
results used in a member or frame analysis (Oehlers Now let us look at the effect of accommodating
et al. 2012b). tension stiffening with residual shrinkage and
prestress strains on the M/θ behaviour of an RC
member segment of a beam with a concrete strength
(a) of 36 MPa, width 150 mm, depth 300 mm and with
40
3 No. 12 mm steel bars. Figure 18(a) shows the
35 G K variation in M/θ for a segment of length Ldef of
30 F 105 mm. Variation O-A-B-C is the result of the
B J
analysis of a segment without any prestress or
Moment (kNm)

25
shrinkage; concrete cracking occurs at A and the
20 E reinforcement yields at B. The effect of shrinkage is
15 to move the variation to H-I-J-K in which there is: an
increase in rotation throughout that is the member
10 A No prestress/shrinkage
I Shrinkage
becomes more flexible; an earlier commencement of
5 cracking; and a residual rotation O-H due to
Prestress + shrinkage
0
DH
shrinkage prior to the application of moment. The
0 0.0006 0.0012 0.0018 0.0024 0.003 0.0036 addition of prestress moves the variation to D-E-F-G
Rotation in which there is a stiffening of the segment and a
delay in cracking. It may be worth bearing in mind
(b) that the residual rotation O-D is measured from θpr in
40
Figure 7(b) and that the negative component of
35 rotation has not been plotted.
30 F J
The abscissa in Figure 18(a) has been divided by Ldef
B
to derive the variation in curvature as shown in Figure
Moment (kNm)

25
Tension-stiffening 18(b). Prior to cracking that is along O-A or D-E or H-
20 E I, these variations in curvature are exactly the same as
that obtained from a standard M/χ analysis. After
15
cracking that is along A-B, E-F and I-J, the M/θ
10 A Elcr approach gives a mechanics based solution for the
5 Elucr curvature which obviates the need for empirical
solutions used in the M/χ approach. The uncracked and
0
DH cracked flexural rigidities, EIucr and EIcr, for an
0 0.000006 0.000012 0.000018 0.000024 0.00003 unprestressed member without shrinkage is also shown.
Curvature (θ/Ldef)
Another way of visualising the problem with the M/χ
approach is that it cannot quantify the region marked
(c) tension-stiffening.
40
The M/χ variations in Figure 18(b) could be used
35 directly in the analysis of a member. Alternatively the
30 J B F secant stiffnesses after any residual curvatures, that is
the flexural rigidities, could be used as in Figure
Moment (kNm)

25
18(c). Figure 18(c) also highlights the difficulty of
20 E finding empirical solutions for the M/χ approach as
15 Elucr
any flexural rigidity beyond I, A or E such as I-J, A-
B and E-F and beyond has to be determined
10
A empirically.
5
7. SUMMARY
0 The flexural rigidity of a member is usually derived
0 5 10 15
Elequ (kNm2) x107 from a moment-curvature (M/χ) strain based approach.
Being strain based, it cannot cope with the mechanics of
Figure 18. Variation in M/θ, M/χ and M/EI with shrinkage and tension-stiffening and, hence, cannot quantify through
prestress mechanics crack spacing’s and crack widths and their

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013 1715

 Incorporating Residual Strains in the Flexural Rigidity of RC members with Varying Degrees of Prestress and Cracking
effect on the flexural rigidity. An alternative moment-
rotation (M/θ) deformation based approach has been
described. It has been shown that the strain based
moment-curvature and deformation based moment-
rotation approaches give exactly the same results prior
to cracking. However, the deformation based moment-
rotation approach can simulate the mechanics of tension
stiffening and consequently it has been shown how the
deformation based approach can be used to quantify the
effects of creep, shrinkage, prestress, relaxation and
thermal gradients at all levels of loading before and after
cracking and prior to concrete softening. Being purely
mechanics based, the deformation based approach can
be applied to any reinforced concrete flexural member
that is a member with any type of reinforcement and any
type of concrete just as long as the material stress-strain
relationships and the bond-slip characteristics are
known or can be measured through tests.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of
both the Australian Research Council ARC Discovery
Project DP0985828 ‘A unified reinforced concrete
model for flexure and shear’, and the University of
Malaya, Malaysia, Ministry of Higher Education High
Impact Research Grant UM.C/HIR/MOHE/ENG/36
‘Strengthening Structural Elements For Load and
Fatigue using advanced techniques’.
REFERENCES
Bachman, H. (1970). Influence of Shear and Bond on Rotational
Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams, International
Association of Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich,
Switzerland.
CEB (1993). CEB-FIP Model Code 90, Thomas Telford, London,
UK.
CEB (2010). CEB-FIP Model Code 2010, Thomas Telford, London,
UK.
Fields, K. and Bischoff, P.H. (2004) “Tension stiffening and
cracking of high-strength reinforced concrete tension members”,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 4, pp. 447–456.
Chan, H.C., Cheung, Y.K. and Huang, Y.P. (1992) “Crack analysis
of reinforced concrete tension members”, Journal of Structural
Journal, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 8, pp. 2118–2132.
Chen, G.M., Chen, J.F. and Teng, J.G. (2012) “Behaviour of FRP-to
Concrete interfaces between two adjacent cracks: A numerical
investigation on the effects of bondline damage”, Construction
and Building Materials, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 584–591.
Choi, C.K. and Cheung, S.H. (1996). “Tension stiffening model for
planar reinforced concrete members”, Computers & Structures,
Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 179–190.
Dai, J., Ueda, T. and Sato, Y. (2005). “Development of nonlinear
bond stress slip model for fiber reinforced plastics sheet-concrete
1716
interfaces with simple bond method”, Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 52–62.
Dai, J., Ueda, T. and Sato, Y. (2006). “Unified analytical approaches
for determining shear bond characteristics of FRP-concrete
interfaces through pull out tests”, Journal of Advanced Concrete
Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 133–145.
Eligehausen, R., Popov, E.P. and Bertero, V.V. (1982). Local Bond
Stress-Slip Relationship of Deformed Bars under Generalized
Excitations, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre
UCB/EERC83/23, University of California, Berkeley, California,
USA.
Fields, K. and Bischoff, PH. (2004). “Tension stiffening and
cracking of high-strength reinforced concrete tension members”,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 101, No. 4, pp. 447–456.
Goto, Y. (1971). “Cracks formed in concrete around deformed
tension bars”, ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol. 68, No. 4,
pp. 244–251.
Gupta A.K. and Maestrini, S.R. (1990). “Tension stiffening model
for reinforced concrete bars”, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 769–790.
Haskett, M., Oehlers, D.J., Mohamed Ali, M.S. and Wu, C. (2009a).
“Rigid body moment-rotation mechanism for reinforced concrete
beam hinges”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 31, No. 5,
pp. 1032–1041.
Haskett, M., Oehlers, D.J., Mohamed Ali, M.S. and Wu, C. (2009b).
“Yield penetration hinge rotation in reinforced concrete beams”,
Journal of Structural Journal, ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 2,
pp. 130–138.
Haskett, M., Mohamed Ali, M.S., Oehlers, D.J. and Wu, C. (2009c).
“Influence of bond on the hinge rotation of FRP plated beams”,
Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 833–843.
Hegemier, G.A., Murakami, H. and Hageman, L.J. (1985). “On
tension stiffening in reinforced concrete”, Mechanics of
Materials, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 161–179.
Jiang, D.H., Shah, S.P. and Andonian, A.T. (1984). “Study of the
transfer of tensile forces by bond”, Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 251–259.
Lee, G.Y. and Kim, W. (2008). “Cracking and tension stiffening
behaviour of high strength concrete tension members subjected to
axial load”, Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 5,
pp. 127–137.
Marti, P., Alvarez, M., Kaufmann, W. and Sigrist, V. (1998).
“Tension chord model for structural concrete”, Structural
Engineering International, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 287–298.
Morza, S.M. and Houde, J. (1979). “Study of bond stress-slip
relationships in reinforced concrete”, Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 19–46.
Mohamed Ali, M.S., Oehlers, D.J., Haskett, M. and Griffith, M.C.
(2012). “Discrete rotation in RC beams”, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 138, No. 11,
pp. 1317–1325.
Muhamad, R., Mohamed Ali, M.S., Oehlers, D.J. and Griffith, M.C.
(2012). “The tension stiffening mechanism in reinforced concrete
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013
D. Knight, P. Visintin, D.J. Oehlers and M.Z. Jumaat

prisms”, Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 12, pp. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31,
2053–2069. No. 12, pp. 591–1608.
Oehlers, D.J. and Bradford, M.A. (1995). Composite Steel and Wu, Z., Yuan, H. and Niu, H. (2002). “Stress transfer and fracture in
Concrete Structural Members: Fundamental Behaviour, different kinds of adhesive joints”, Journal of Engineering
Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK. Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 5, pp. 562–573.
Oehlers, D.J. and Bradford, M.A. (1999). Elementary behaviour of Wu, H.Q. and Gilbert, R.I. (2008). An Experimental Study of Tension
Composite Steel and Concrete Structural Members, Butterworth Stiffening in Reinforced Concrete Members under Short-Term
Heinemann, Oxford, UK. and Long-Term Loads, UNICIV Report No. R-449, The
Oehlers, D.J. (2010). “The hunt for the elusive concept”, Advances University of New South Wales, Australia.
in Structural Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 755–772. Wu, Z., Yoshikawa, H. and Tanabe, T. (1991). “Tension stiffness
Oehlers, D.J, Haskett, M., Mohamed Ali, M.S., Lucas, W. and model for cracked reinforced concrete”, Journal of Structural
Muhamad, R. (2011a). “Our obsession with curvature in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 715–732.
reinforced concrete modelling”, Advances in Structural Yankelevsky, D.Z., Jabareen, M. and Abutbul, A.D. (2008). “One-
Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 399–412. dimensional analysis of tension stiffening in reinforced concrete
Oehlers, D.J., Mohamed Ali, M.S., Haskett, M., Lucas, W., with discrete cracks”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.
Muhamad, R. and Visintin, P. (2011b). “FRP reinforced concrete 206–217.
beams – a unified approach based on IC theory”, Composites for Yuan, H., Teng, J.G., Seracino, R., Wu, Z.S. and Yao, J. (2004).
Construction, ASCE, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 293–303. “Full-range behavior of FRP-to-concrete bonded joints”,
Oehlers, D.J., Mohamed Ali, M.S., Griffith, M.C., Haskett, M. and Engineering Structures, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 543–691.
Lucas, W. (2012a). “A generic unified reinforced concrete
model”, Proceedings of ICE: Structures and Buildings, Vol. 165, NOTATION
No. 1, pp. 27–49. Ac cross-sectional area of concrete in tension-
Oehlers, D.J., Visintin, P. and Haskett, M. (2012b). “The ideal bond stiffening prism
characteristics for reinforced concrete members”, Proceedings of Ar cross-sectional area of reinforcement in
Bond in Concrete, Brescia, Italy, June. tension-stiffening prism; total area of
Rizkalla, S.H. and Hwang, L.S. (1984). “Crack prediction for reinforcement in tension-stiffening prism with
members in uniaxial tension”, Journal of the American Concrete multiple reinforcement
Institute, Vol. 81, No. 6, pp. 572–579. b width of prism
Seracino, R., Raizal Saifulnaz, M.R. and Oehlers, D.J. (2007a). Bn bond force in nth element
“Generic debonding resistance of EB and NSM plate-to-concrete C-C concrete base line; deformations relative to
joints”, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, Vol. 11, concrete base line cause stress
No. 1, pp. 62–70. C’-C’ concrete base line allowing for creep and
Seracino, R., Jones, N.M., Mohamed Ali, M.S., Page, M.W. and thermal gradients
Oehlers, D.J. (2007b). “Bond strength of near-surface mounted cr distance from reinforcement to outer surface
FRP-to-concrete joints”, Journal of Composites for Construction, crd distance from prestressing rod to outer surface
ASCE, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 401–409 comp compression
Somayaji, S. and Shah, S.P. (1981). “Bond stress versus slip cont contraction
relationship and cracking response of tension members”, D–D datum
Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 78, No. 3, de depth of element
pp. 217–225. E–E Euler-Bernoulli applied deformation
Stramandinoli, R.S.B. and La Rovere, H.L. (2008). “An efficient Ec–Ec concrete end in element
tension-stiffening model for non-linear analysis of reinforced Epr–Epr deformation due to prestress
concrete members”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 30, No. 7, Er–Er reinforcement end in element
pp. 2069–2080. EI flexural rigidity
Teng, G.J., Yuan, H. and Chen, J.F. (2006). “FRP-to-concrete EIeq equivalent flexural rigidity
interfaces between two adjacent cracks: Theoretical model for EIcr EI cracked section
debonding failure”, International Journal of Solids and EIucr EI of uncracked section
Structures, Vol. 43, No. 18–19, pp. 5750–5778. EIso EI at commencement of concrete softening
Visintin, P., Oehlers, D.J., Wu, C. and Haskett, M. (2012a). “A exp expansion
mechanics solution for hinges in RC beams with multiple F force; force profile
cracks”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 36, pp. 61–69. Fc axial force in concrete prism
Visintin, P., Oehlers, D.J., Wu, C. and Griffith, M.C. (2012b). “The Fcc resultant F in concrete in compression
cyclic behaviour of reinforced concrete beam hinges”, Fcn mean force in concrete in nth element

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013 1717

 Incorporating Residual Strains in the Flexural Rigidity of RC members with Varying Degrees of Prestress and Cracking

Fct resultant F in concrete in tension ∆pk slip at ∆max

FI full-interaction ∆′pr ∆′ due to prestress
Fr force in reinforcement at crack face in tension- ∆′sh ∆′ due to shrinkage
stiffening analysis ∆′T total ∆′
FRC resultant force on RC section ∆′tem ∆′ due to temperature change
Frb F in bottom reinforcement from strain δ displacement; displacement profile
Frb-pi F in bottom reinforcement from partial δcc δ of concrete at level of compression
interaction tension-stiffening reinforcing bar
Frd F in prestressing rod δrt δ of top reinforcing bar
Frn mean force in reinforcement in nth element δrc-rd δ of RC section at level of prestressing rod
Frt F in top reinforcement δrb δ of bottom reinforcing bar
G fracture energy of τ-∆; area under τ-∆ δrd δ of rod after grouting
hcr crack height δTr change in temperature of reinforcement
L–L element end δTc change in temperature of concrete
Lcri distance from crack face required to develop δ∆n increase in slip due to strains within an
full bond element
Ldef deformation length χ * curvature
Le length of element in tension-stiffening analysis ε * strain; strain profile
Lfi length of reinforcement where there is full- εc concrete strain profile; strain in concrete
interaction εc–ap change in concrete strain due to applied loads
Lper perimeter length of reinforcement in tension- εc–pr change in concrete strain due to prestress
stiffening prism; total perimeter length of εc–sh change in concrete strain due to shrinkage
reinforcement in tension-stiffening prism with εct concrete tensile strain capacity
multiple reinforcement εc–tem change in concrete strain due to temperature
Lpi length of reinforcement in which there is εcn mean strain in concrete in nth tension-
partial-interaction stiffening element
Lpri length of tension-stiffening prism εpr strain in prestressing rod on application of Ppr
LT total length of tension-stiffening prism from εr reinforcement strain profile; strain in
datum or boundary reinforcement
M moment εr–ap change in reinforcement strain due to applied
Mcr M in uncracked member at onset of cracking loads
n element number εr–pr change in reinforcement strain due to prestress
P axial load εr–sh change in reinforcement strain due to
PI partial-interaction shrinkage
Ppr applied prestressing force εr–tem change in reinforcement strain due to
R–R reinforcement base line; deformations relative temperature
to reinforcement base line cause stress εrn mean strain in reinforcement in nth tension-
R’–R’ reinforcement base line allowing for thermal stiffening element
gradients εsh shrinkage strain
RC reinforced concrete θ rotation
ten tension θcr rotation of crack face
U–U end of segment without residual strains θm change in rotation due to applied moment
αc concrete coefficient of thermal expansion θpr rotation due to application of prestressing force
αr reinforcement coefficient of thermal expansion θso θ at commencement of concrete softening
∆ slip between reinforcement and adjacent * stress; stress profile
concrete σpr stress in prestressing rod
∆′ap ∆′ due to temperature change σr stress in reinforcement
∆cf slip of reinforcement at crack face σc stress in concrete
∆max slip in τ/∆ beyond which the bond shear τ shear stress
strength is zero τmax maximum shear stress in τ/∆
∆′ slip-strain d∆/dx τ/∆ bond-slip properties

1718 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 16 No. 10 2013

Copyright of Advances in Structural Engineering is the property of Multi-Science Publishing
Co Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.